The Supreme Court ruling on warrantless GPS tracking: 'Simply wrong'?

The nation's highest court unanimously deems it illegal to digitally track a person's vehicle without a warrant. Will that help criminals go undetected?

Best Opinion:  Boston.com, Forbes, The Atlantic

On Monday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police must obtain a warrant before using a GPS device to track a vehicle — a major victory for privacy rights supporters. "The government's installation of a GPS device on a target's vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a 'search,'" said Justice Antonin Scalia, representing the five-justice majority. (The other four arrived at the same decision but wrote other, concurring opinions). The ruling has some Americans outraged, since the extra steps police must take to get a warrant might allow lawbreakers to go undetected for longer. What should we make of this ruling?

It doesn't go far enough: This decision is a "major victory" for people who demand a "clear translation of basic constitutional rights in the digital age," says Kade Crockford at Boston.com. But if anything, the ruling doesn't go far enough, largely because it doesn't extend to GPS tracking on a person's phone. The government has already shown its "keen interest in mobile phone tracking and obtaining information about us from third-party holders without warrants." Now that our phones are packed with all of our private information, these issues "could not be more important."
"Victory! Government must get a warrant to use GPS tracking devices on our cars"

This is outrageous: The Supreme Court's decision is "simply wrong," argues David Coursey at Forbes. Now that law enforcement officials will need "probable cause" to track a vehicle, criminals have the green light to "behave even more boldly, knowing their movements are now more difficult to track without detection." The way we're going, "how long will it be until any form of police surveillance requires a warrant? At this rate, not very long, I fear."
"Criminals laud Supreme Court GPS decision (or should)"

And we can't keep looking to the past for answers: "All nine of the justices, I suspect, would be relieved if Congress would take on the tough questions posed by the combination of computer power and ubiquitous tracking devices," says Garrett Epps at The Atlantic. Because in a technology-driven age, there will only be more "difficult questions" to answer. And we need to stop looking to the past for solutions. "Could colonial sheriffs have smuggled a tiny constable into a carriage?" Of course not. So why does the Supreme Court keep relying on the precedent of 18th-century legal wisdom to make these decisions?
"Justice Scalia turns to 18th-century wisdom for guidance on GPS"

 

The Supreme Court denies an innocent man $14 million: The fallout

Civil rights activists howl after the nation's highest court overturns a multimillion-dollar verdict for a wrongfully-imprisoned man who spent 18 years on death row

John Thompson spent 18 years in a Louisiana prison for two murders he did not commit. Now, the Supreme Court has ruled that he does not deserve $14 million in compensation from the prosecutors who illegally convicted him. The New Orleans district attorney's office... More

Arizona's election law: Will the Supreme Court side with the rich?

An Arizona law that gives public money to political candidates who forswear private funding may be overturned

In the biggest campaign finance case since 2010's landmark Citizens United ruling, which removed campaign spending limits for corporations, the Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to Arizona's public financing system on Monday. At issue is whether Arizona's law... More

Westboro Baptist Church wins Supreme Court ruling: The right decision?

The highest court in the land rules that the strategically offensive anti-gay protests by Fred Phelps' church are protected by the First Amendment

The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protects the Westboro Baptist Church's controversial protests of military funerals. In an 8-1 decision, the court said that the church, led by pastor Fred Phelps, was exercising its freedom of speech in displaying... More

Should Justice Thomas recuse himself from a health care reform ruling?

House Democrats say he should, due to conflicts of interest stemming from his wife's lobbying. What are the chances of this actually happening?

A group of 74 Democrats signed a letter to conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas asking him to recuse himself from any decision on health care reform. The Democrats' rationale: His wife's lobbying against the law creates "the appearance of a conflict... More

Justice Scalia's 'shocking' stance on sex discrimination

Women's rights advocates are seething after Scalia says the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination against women and gays

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia touched off a fierce debate over the Constitution this week by saying, in an interview with California Lawyer magazine, that the 14th Amendment does not protect against discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. Marcia... More